Case law

Sabre International Security v. Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, Inc.

820 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 27, 2011

With regard to the TWISS II claims, Torres fails to clearly indicate at a number of points in its papers whether it is seeking Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, Rule 56 summary judgment, or both. … Sabre also argues that its allegations establish the existence of a contract under theories of estoppel and promissory estoppel. Sabre Opp’n to MTD 19.

Davis v. United States Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 3, 2019

The only question, then, is whether the records the FBI withheld qualify as a BSA “report” or “records of reports.” … Davis appears to believe that this sequence of events establishes a FOIA violation.

Hardin v. Jackson

648 F. Supp. 2d 42 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 2009

See Quinclorac Establishment of Temporary Tolerances, 56 Fed.Reg. *45 28153 (June 19, 1991); Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption to use Quinelorae Solicitation of Public Comment, 57 Fed.Reg. 8660 (Mar. 11, 1992 … Circuit “has long held that section 2401(a) creates ‘a jurisdictional condition attached to the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity.’ ” P & V Enters. v. U.S.

Environmental Defense Fund v. Thomas

627 F. Supp. 566 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 28, 1986

OMB’s authority is qualified by the rule. … Yet declaratory relief is necessary to ensure compliance with the clearly expressed will of Congress.

Duran v. Andrew

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 5, 2010

The burden of presenting sufficient facts to establish the privilege rests with the party claiming it. Id. … Feb. 25, 2009) (commenting that no witness can claim immunity as to facts)). See generally Harding v. Dana Transport, Inc., 914 F.

State of Maryland v. United States Department of Education

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2020

And “[i]t is the responsibility of the complainant clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court’s remedial powers.” … Harm to any of these state interests—sovereign, quasi-sovereign, or nonsovereign—is sufficient to establish that a state has suffered an injury in fact, see Snapp, 458 U.S. at 601–02, and if it further establishes that

Kincaid v. Garland

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 7, 2024

Cir. 2006) (explaining that there are “no ‘magic words’” that make something oppositional, but the complainant must clearly oppose “in some way allege[d] unlawful discrimination”). … Under that framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Wheeler, 812 F.3d at 1113-14.

Beattie v. Trump Shuttle, Inc.

758 F. Supp. 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 5, 1991

The Court thus finds that the pleadings and affidavits in this matter have established all material facts necessary to determine the liability issues raised by the parties. … Trump contends that it could not hire Beattie because it needed a full contingent of qualified pilots in order to maintain its shuttle operations.

United States v. Upshur

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 2019

May 8, 2017) (permitting the petitioner to challenge his sentencing enhancement under the Guidelines in a successive § 2255 motion because “Beckles did not clearly foreclose the argument that |Johnson’s] reasoning is … Here, although the defendant claims that he is “factually innocent of having two or more qualifying prior convictions,” Def`.’s Supp.

Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2025

The costs Plaintiffs have expended and will expend in seeking out alternative data and tools also do not qualify as irreparable harm. See Mot. Prelim. … Because Plaintiffs have not clearly established irreparable harm, the Court will deny their motion without considering the other preliminary injunction factors. See CityFed Fin.

SEC v. C.E.C. Indus. Corp

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 24, 2009

To establish the existence of an alter ego relationship, the following must be established: (1) the corporation was influenced and governed by the person asserted to be the alter ego; (2) there is such unity of interest … It is a privately held company incorporated in Delaware, which employs a similar alter-ego establish that [an entity] is an alter ego, they clearly provide support for that conclusion.”).

Ananiev v. Freitas

37 F. Supp. 3d 297 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 11, 2014

“A dispute does not fall within the subject- matter jurisdiction of federal courts unless it qualifies as a ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ within the meaning of article III, and it cannot so qualify unless the plaintiff has suffered … The plaintiff restates many of his factual allegations and refers to numerous sources of law, but does not clearly elucidate a specific claim under any of those sources.

United States v. All Funds in Account Nos. 747.034/278, 747.009/278, & 747.714/278 in Banco Espanol De Credito, Spain

141 F. Supp. 2d 548 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 4, 2001

The U.S. had clearly “discovered” both Matta’s drug offenses and their connection to the 034 account as of July, 1992 and yet dallied for more than five years before attempting to reduce the funds to possession. … If it were true, forfeitable property accumulated abroad would be perpetually immune from forfeiture after five years.

Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. v. Azar

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2021

Indeed, they simply conclude that the 2013 Rule would maintain the status quo established in the 2004 Rule. … Mar. 28, 2021) (analyzing whether Plaintiffs qualify as small entities under the RFA) (citing Lexmark Int’l Inc. v.

Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 11, 2023

Second, it claims that FWS is in violation of § 4(c) of the ESA, which requires a review of all species’ listing status at least once every five years, because the analysis in the 2020 delisting rule allegedly did not qualify … But there, FWS concededly had established “a single recovery plan for the grizzly bear” listed species, Ursus arctos horribilis. Reply at 6.

Perry v. U.S. Department of Education

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2023

Here, the plaintiff has not satisfied her burden to show that she is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b) because she has not established that the customer service representative’s notification on July 15, 2022, see Pl.’ … Under either scenario, the Court concludes that the information does not qualify as “newly discovered evidence” under Rule 60(b)(2). See Fed. R. Civ.

Albra v. Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2018

Ltr.”) establishes that the plaintiff was charged in June 2015 with multiple violations of MDC’s code of conduct based on complaints by six female students. … an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law” and its “own Case Processing Manual,” citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Count III alleges that OCR’s actions were “[c]ontrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Simon v. United States Department of Justice

752 F. Supp. 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 3, 1991

Although it is well established that “ ‘disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of [FOIA],’ ” John Doe Agency v. … Moreover, the burden is on the agency to establish that one of FOIA’s exemptions shields the requested information from disclosure. Id. (quoting § 552(a)(4)(B)).

Topuridze v. United States Information Agency

772 F. Supp. 662 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 1991

The Court reasoned: [The Privacy Act] clearly states that an individual is entitled to his record, as well as to other information that pertains to him. … The Court ruled that release of the document by USIA might require permission of the author only if the document were "about” the author, Slip. op. at 4, and concluded that the document could not qualify as being "about”

Covelo Indian Community v. Watt

551 F. Supp. 366 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 17, 1982

In their applications to the federal government for permission to sell their allotments, the Indians recited that they were selling their lands to qualify for welfare. … They have also established a sufficient connection between the injury claimed and defendants’ actions and inactions.